Limits...
Veterinary and human vaccine evaluation methods.

Knight-Jones TJ, Edmond K, Gubbins S, Paton DJ - Proc. Biol. Sci. (2014)

Bottom Line: However, if vaccination is performed without central co-ordination, as is often the case for veterinary vaccines, evaluation will be limited.Foot-and-mouth disease has been used to illustrate the veterinary approach.Recommendations are made for standardization of terminology and for rigorous evaluation of veterinary vaccines.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Pirbright Institute, , Pirbright, UK, The Royal Veterinary College (VEEPH), University of London, , London, UK, School of Paediatrics and Child Health (SPACH), The University of Western Australia, , Crawley, Australia.

ABSTRACT
Despite the universal importance of vaccines, approaches to human and veterinary vaccine evaluation differ markedly. For human vaccines, vaccine efficacy is the proportion of vaccinated individuals protected by the vaccine against a defined outcome under ideal conditions, whereas for veterinary vaccines the term is used for a range of measures of vaccine protection. The evaluation of vaccine effectiveness, vaccine protection assessed under routine programme conditions, is largely limited to human vaccines. Challenge studies under controlled conditions and sero-conversion studies are widely used when evaluating veterinary vaccines, whereas human vaccines are generally evaluated in terms of protection against natural challenge assessed in trials or post-marketing observational studies. Although challenge studies provide a standardized platform on which to compare different vaccines, they do not capture the variation that occurs under field conditions. Field studies of vaccine effectiveness are needed to assess the performance of a vaccination programme. However, if vaccination is performed without central co-ordination, as is often the case for veterinary vaccines, evaluation will be limited. This paper reviews approaches to veterinary vaccine evaluation in comparison to evaluation methods used for human vaccines. Foot-and-mouth disease has been used to illustrate the veterinary approach. Recommendations are made for standardization of terminology and for rigorous evaluation of veterinary vaccines.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Diagram showing the different types of vaccine effect detectable in acluster trial and which vaccine groups to compare to estimate them.Within a cluster, V and U representvaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, respectively [6]. Usingthis design, the different effects (direct, indirect, total and overall)can be estimated by comparing groups as indicated by the arrows. Coveragein the vaccinated cluster is <100%.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4043076&req=5

RSPB20132839F1: Diagram showing the different types of vaccine effect detectable in acluster trial and which vaccine groups to compare to estimate them.Within a cluster, V and U representvaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, respectively [6]. Usingthis design, the different effects (direct, indirect, total and overall)can be estimated by comparing groups as indicated by the arrows. Coveragein the vaccinated cluster is <100%.

Mentions: In cluster randomized trials (CRTs), the intervention is randomly allocated toentire clusters, rather than individuals. Certain CRTs (and observational vaccineeffectiveness studies) can be designed so as to capture direct and indirectvaccine effects (figure 1). FigureĀ 1.


Veterinary and human vaccine evaluation methods.

Knight-Jones TJ, Edmond K, Gubbins S, Paton DJ - Proc. Biol. Sci. (2014)

Diagram showing the different types of vaccine effect detectable in acluster trial and which vaccine groups to compare to estimate them.Within a cluster, V and U representvaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, respectively [6]. Usingthis design, the different effects (direct, indirect, total and overall)can be estimated by comparing groups as indicated by the arrows. Coveragein the vaccinated cluster is <100%.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4043076&req=5

RSPB20132839F1: Diagram showing the different types of vaccine effect detectable in acluster trial and which vaccine groups to compare to estimate them.Within a cluster, V and U representvaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, respectively [6]. Usingthis design, the different effects (direct, indirect, total and overall)can be estimated by comparing groups as indicated by the arrows. Coveragein the vaccinated cluster is <100%.
Mentions: In cluster randomized trials (CRTs), the intervention is randomly allocated toentire clusters, rather than individuals. Certain CRTs (and observational vaccineeffectiveness studies) can be designed so as to capture direct and indirectvaccine effects (figure 1). FigureĀ 1.

Bottom Line: However, if vaccination is performed without central co-ordination, as is often the case for veterinary vaccines, evaluation will be limited.Foot-and-mouth disease has been used to illustrate the veterinary approach.Recommendations are made for standardization of terminology and for rigorous evaluation of veterinary vaccines.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Pirbright Institute, , Pirbright, UK, The Royal Veterinary College (VEEPH), University of London, , London, UK, School of Paediatrics and Child Health (SPACH), The University of Western Australia, , Crawley, Australia.

ABSTRACT
Despite the universal importance of vaccines, approaches to human and veterinary vaccine evaluation differ markedly. For human vaccines, vaccine efficacy is the proportion of vaccinated individuals protected by the vaccine against a defined outcome under ideal conditions, whereas for veterinary vaccines the term is used for a range of measures of vaccine protection. The evaluation of vaccine effectiveness, vaccine protection assessed under routine programme conditions, is largely limited to human vaccines. Challenge studies under controlled conditions and sero-conversion studies are widely used when evaluating veterinary vaccines, whereas human vaccines are generally evaluated in terms of protection against natural challenge assessed in trials or post-marketing observational studies. Although challenge studies provide a standardized platform on which to compare different vaccines, they do not capture the variation that occurs under field conditions. Field studies of vaccine effectiveness are needed to assess the performance of a vaccination programme. However, if vaccination is performed without central co-ordination, as is often the case for veterinary vaccines, evaluation will be limited. This paper reviews approaches to veterinary vaccine evaluation in comparison to evaluation methods used for human vaccines. Foot-and-mouth disease has been used to illustrate the veterinary approach. Recommendations are made for standardization of terminology and for rigorous evaluation of veterinary vaccines.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus